Irrationality is such a weakly defined term, and I suspect the definition of “rationality” I use when describing economic models is a LOT more broad than the rationality definition people use when criticising said models 😀

As you know, I’m not going to blame the organisations for doing what they were asked to do – the issue stems from the fact that people felt these costs were policy relevant in of themselves in the first place.

Economics in primary schools IMO.

Exactly. It begs the question, in the proper usage of the term. Like BERL and Collins & Lapsley did. :>

Hmm, I do think consensual cannibalism is rational when you know you are going to die anyway, and your meat could save lives (giggity).

Perhaps you mean the arms length consensual cannibalism that was practised in the last few years by some Russian, German, or Skandi?

More on topic; I reckon one of the best things to come from my tertiary education was a greater tendency to ask “what are my biases?” and to admit (at least to myself, outside the heat of prattle) “maybe I could be wrong”.

I like to pay my lecturers the honour of having played some small, but not insignificant, role in making me the most awesomely humble person I am today.

I think irrationality can exist, and I dont read the OP as saying any different. Only that very often when you see people (or politicians) assert the irrationality of others, they arent likely to be supported by reality.

It is assuming your own conclusion – it isn’t any sort of objective analysis.  100% agree with you here.

Hi Joe,

“Just to test Kimble’s theory – how about ‘consensual cannibilism’? Are you prepared to conceive of that as rational?”

On the face of it yes.  Of course, it may be the case that the few people who do agree to this extreme transaction or in emotional or mental distress – if we can relate to that I can understand why we would prevent it.  However, the burden of proof is on the prevention.

I think I covered similar sorts of issues when talking about Sweeny Todd and welfare principals.

http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2010/01/05/filler-the-sweeney-posts/

“But what of the (growing) litertature that suggests that individuals will be predictably irrational in a variety of ways? We struggle with inertia, loss aversion and all sorts of forms of cognitive biases, not to mention that our rationality is surely bounded at best?”

Excellent point, and now I will be a bit more serious 😉

I think that a lot of this literature, and introspection by individuals, illustrates that we are biased in certain ways – and that we recognise this, and try to come up with mechanisms to deal with it.

In so far as policy is based upon these mechanisms, and can be viewed as a “social contract” to help us improve outcomes, it is fine.  However, to me this view fits into the scope of rationality – it just involves coming up with a fuller representation of what individual decision making entails.

This is in contrast to how many people use irrationality – which is just to presume stupidity.  I am not convinced there is a basis for this type of assumption 😉

Hehehehehe

More broadly, I like the sentiment that we should be less judgemental of other’s choices than our own. It may be that rationality is the best default proxy for thinking about how people behave. But what of the (growing) litertature that suggests that individuals will be predictably irrational in a variety of ways? We struggle with inertia, loss aversion and all sorts of forms of cognitive biases, not to mention that our rationality is surely bounded at best?

+1
+1
+1